Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 391 (PNJ)

Gulshan v. State of Haryana

2008-02-12

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, S.D.ANAND

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. The appellant challenges his conviction under section 302 IPC, for which he has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo RI for one year. 2. Case of the prosecution is that the deceased Sanjay was working at Om Flower House, Bhiwani Stand, Rohtak. About six months prior to the occurrence which took place on 13.11.1996, the appellant caused injuries to the deceased for which he was facing a criminal case. The said case was fixed for 12.11.1996. The deceased told father of the appellant that since the appellant did not appear, the court might issue warrants against him. On 13.11.1996 in the morning, the appellant came to the house of the deceased and threatened to eliminate him. Later in the day at around 12/12.30 PM, the appellant confronted the deceased near Gomti Shopping Centre when the deceased was going with his brother Ramesh alias Bitoo PW14 and PW15 Sunder and gave 5-6 blows with the knife which he was holding, hitting left side of his neck, chin, left cheek and both arms, as a result of which he fell down. The accused escaped with his weapon. The deceased was taken to PGIMS Rohtak, where he was declared dead. PW14 Ramesh alias Bitoo made a statement Ex.PG/1 at 3.15 PM, which was recorded by Inspector Ravinder Kumar. PW1 Sishpal Singh Inspector verified the investigation and sent up the accused for trial. 3. The prosecution also examined PW2 Jai Singh, Reader to Magistrate about the earlier complaint against the appellant on the basis of which report under sections 107/151 Cr.PC was filed, PW3 Constable Sumit Kumar, who prepared site plan, PW4 HC Jai Bhagwan, who produced record relating to FIR dated 26.4.1996 under section 324 IPC against the appellant, PW5 HC Jagdish Chander, PW6 Constable Satbir Singh, PW7 Constable Raj Singh and PW8 Constable Balbir Singh, who tendered their affidavits, PW9 HC Raj Singh, who recorded formal FIR, PW10 ASI Subhash Chander, who was a witness to the recovery of lifted blood stained earth from the place of occurrence, PW11 HC Krishan Kumar who arrested the accused in an earlier case, PW12 HC Surat Singh, who produced the clothes of the deceased to Inspector Ravinder Kumar after the post mortem and was a witness to disclosure statement of the accused leading to recovery of knife. PW13 Dr. PW13 Dr. Raman Shukla, who conducted post mortem, PW14 Ramesh alias Bitoo, eye witness, PW15 Sunder, another eye witness, and PW16 Kuldeep Singh, photographer. The accused denied the prosecution allegations. The trial court, mainly on the basis of eye witness account given by PW14 Ramesh alias Bitoo and PW15 Sunder, held the case of the prosecution to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the eye witness account was not reliable and was in conflict with the medical evidence. According to eye witness account, occurrence took place at 12.30 PM but according to medical evidence, the occurrence must have taken place in the early hours of the day. According to PW13 Dr. Raman Shukla who conducted post mortem on 13.11.1996 at 5 PM found rigor mortis present in all the limbs alongwith post mortem staining. He also found following injuries:- “1. There was an incised wound of size 3.5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on left cheek. 6 cm from left pinna and 3.5 cm from left angle of mouth. 2. Incised wound of size 4.2 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep on the left side of face just below the lower lip and 2 cm from the chin. It was obliquenly placed and 0.5 cm from the midline at the lower lip. On dissection, there was fracture of left mandible. 3. Incised wound of size 1 cm x .5 cm on left side of the upper lip, .5 cm from the midline. 4. Incised wound of size 4 cm x 1.5 cm on the right side of anterior surface of the chest in its upper part. It was 4 cm from the mid line and 9 cm from and above right nipple. On dissection, second rib on right side was fractured. There was an incised wound of size 3 x 5 x 4 cm on anterior surface of upper lobe of right lung in its medial part. Massive haemothorax was present on right side. Xx xxxxxx The cause of death of the deceased was due to shock due to injury No.4 which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of events. All injuries were ante-mortem in nature.” According to him, time between death and post mortem could be between 6 to 36 hours. 5. Massive haemothorax was present on right side. Xx xxxxxx The cause of death of the deceased was due to shock due to injury No.4 which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of events. All injuries were ante-mortem in nature.” According to him, time between death and post mortem could be between 6 to 36 hours. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to Modi's 'Medical Jurisprudence' 22nd Edition Page 229, wherein it has been observed that average period of onset of rigour mortis is three to six hours and continues for 24 to 48 hours in winter and upto 36 hours in summer. He also referred to judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kunju Mohammed @ Khumani and another v. State of Kerala, JT 2003(7) SC 114, wherein time for reaching of the rigor mortis to the different parts of the body was taken as seven hours. Reference was then made to judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramreddym Rajeshkhanna Reddy and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh, JT 2006(4) SC 16, wherein it was observed that medical science was not perfect to determine the exact time of death. He also referred to judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganga Sahai and others v. State of UP, AIR 1974 SC 463, to submit that questions arising out of post mortem report ought to be carefully considered. It was also submitted that no independent witness was examined, though place of crime was a busy place frequented by traffic and public, as admitted by PW14 Ramesh alias Bitoo. Leanred counsel also referred to the site plan to show that the occurrence was near a pucca road. He also submitted that the eye witnesses who claimed to be present, did not accompany the deceased to the hospital. The deceased was taken to the hospital by constable Raj Singh as per testimony of PW13 Dr. Raman Shukla. FIR was not lodged by PW14 Ramesh alias Bitoo only after arrival of police on the basis of V.T. Report as recorded by Inspector Ravinder Kumar in the police proceedings below the statement of Ramesh alias Bitoo. 6. We do not find any merit in the contentions raised. Evidence of PW14 Ramesh alias Bitoo, brother of the deceased, who witnessed the occurrence, does not suffer from any discrepancy. 6. We do not find any merit in the contentions raised. Evidence of PW14 Ramesh alias Bitoo, brother of the deceased, who witnessed the occurrence, does not suffer from any discrepancy. The occurrence took place in broad day light and there could be no question of mistake of identity. There were previous occurrences in which the accused was facing criminal proceedings. The deceased was threatened on the date of occurrence. Testimony of a close relative cannot be rejected as partisan. Version given by PW14 Ramesh alias Bitoo is corroborated by the version given by him in the FIR immediately after the occurrence. Merely because I.O. had reached the hospital on receiving V.T. Message, cannot be held to be any discrepancy, casting doubt about presence of PW14 Ramesh alias Bitoo at the place of occurrence. It cannot be held that only the person mentioned in the post mortem report had accompanied the deceased. The doctor is not required to mention names of every person accompanying the dead body. PW14 Ramesh alias Bitoo was very much present in the hospital when the I.O., reached there on receiving message. His version is also fully corroborated by PW15 Sunder, uncle of the deceased. In cross examination, nothing could be elicited to doubt their version. Presence of rigour mortis can be rough basis of assessing of time of death but cannot be accurate basis thereof. Setting in of rigour mortis within five and half hours cannot be impossibility. The judgments relied upon do not hold to the contrary. According to version of the eye witnesses, occurrence took place at 12.30 PM and post mortem was conducted at 5 PM. Non-examination of independent witnesses is not a ground to reject the version of eye witnesses. It is almost impossible to find independent witnesses, who may come forward and give evidence. 7. We are of the opinion that testimony of PW14 Ramesh alias Bitoo and PW15 Sunder is reliable, inspires confidence and is corroborated by medical evidence and other circumstances. We do not find any ground to interfere with the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.